2
$\begingroup$

Can you suggest a good name for a local homomorphism $(R,\mathfrak{m})\stackrel{\varphi}{\rightarrow}(S,\mathfrak{n})$ of local rings with the property that $\varphi(m)S$ is $\mathfrak{n}$-primary?

EDIT: Would you use 'map of finite length'? (because $S/f(\mathfrak{m})S$ has finite length over $S$?) Assume $R$ and $S$ are noetherian.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not just call the morphism $n$-primary? $\endgroup$ Sep 20, 2011 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @David: because it's not an ideal to be $n$-primary. It would be confused with an $n$-primary ideal, I think. $\endgroup$ Sep 20, 2011 at 23:04
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathfrak{n}$-secondary ? $\;\;$ $\endgroup$
    – user5810
    Sep 21, 2011 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ Primal? $\,\,\!$ $\endgroup$ Sep 21, 2011 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think $\mathfrak n$-primary is too bad. If $\psi:A\to B$ is a morphism, and $\mathfrak a\subset A$ an ideal and $\mathfrak p\subset B$ prime, we can think of an ideal $\mathfrak a$ as $\mathfrak p$-primary relative to $\psi$ if the extension of $\mathfrak a$ along $\psi$ is $\mathfrak p$-primary. Now since $(A,\mathfrak m)$ and $(B,\mathfrak n)$ are local, if a subideal of $\mathfrak m$ is $\mathfrak n$-primary relative to $\psi$ then so is $\mathfrak m$ (uuh, right?). Perhaps $(\mathfrak m,\mathfrak n)$-primary? $\endgroup$ Sep 21, 2011 at 9:40

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

One can notice that your hypothesis is equivalent to say that the closed fiber of $\mathrm{Spec}(S)\to \mathrm{Spec}(R)$ has dimension $0$ because this closed fibers is equal to $V(\varphi(\mathfrak m)S)$, and $V(I)$ of an ideal $I$ in $S$ is reduced to the closed point if and only the nilradical of $I$ is equal to $\mathfrak n$ which is equivalent to $I$ being $\mathfrak n$-primary as $\mathfrak n$ is maximal.

So one could call your homomorphism ''of relative dimension $0$'', except that I am not sure whether the same condition holds over the other prime ideals of $R$.

Don't you need some noetherian condition to get the finiteness of the length over $S$ ?

Update The dimension condition on the closed fiber doesn't propagate to other fibers. Let us consider the following example. Let $k$ be a field, $R=k[[x,y]]$, $S=k(z)[[x,y]]$ et let $\phi$ be the inclusion $R\subset S$. Then $\mathfrak mS=\mathfrak n$. Now I claim that the generic fiber of $\mathrm{Spec}(S)\to \mathrm{Spec}(R)$ has positive dimension. Otherwise, $S\otimes_R \mathrm{Frac}(R)$ would be a field. But this tensor product is the localization of $k(z)[[x,y]]$ with respect to the multiplicative subset $k[[x,y]]\setminus \lbrace 0 \rbrace$. It is easy to see that there is not enough denominators to make the localization into a field (e.g. $x+zy$ is not invertible in the localization).

So, one can only say "of relative dimension $0$ at the closed fiber". And yes this sounds too long.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "of relative dimension zero" makes sense. Would you say "of relative dimension zero at the closed point", or does that sound too long? In my mind everything is noetherian :)) but you are right, I should have said that (I'll add it now.) $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2011 at 19:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.